The Canon 6300 makes beautiful prints and I use it a lot, but you won't need a microscope to see the difference between prints from a 6300 and those from a 7900. You might not know what acounts for the difference untill you do look closely, but you'll spot it at a normal distance. For that reason, when I want the best results I can get, I use the 7900. This review from The McNamara Report (below) has a few good examples of what I mean. The comments about the relative speed of the printers are bunk, but he is spot on about their quality differences.

Chap seems to be through in his review - sure presents a choice that is not to my liking:1. Canon - less clog issues but for my critical standards image not a detailed/smooth/sharp as Epson2. Epson - best image but could be buying a nightmare due to it's clogging history.

In all honesty I think too many people spend too much time comparing and anaylizing to death, trying to figure out which printer is best etc., etc. in the end your final print will be a result of the file your working with. My approach is to go all the way back to where it all begins and that is in the camera, the very 1st step in the process. I spend the most time and concentration there. A great image file will look good printed on any good printer.

In all honesty I think too many people spend too much time comparing and anaylizing to death, trying to figure out which printer is best etc., etc. in the end your final print will be a result of the file your working with. My approach is to go all the way back to where it all begins and that is in the camera, the very 1st step in the process. I spend the most time and concentration there. A great image file will look good printed on any good printer.

Yeah, if you are using quality media and a good profile.

I have both a 9900 and an iPF8400 and prints that are compared side-by-side are notably different in terms of fine detail. Sure, nozzle checks have to be done quite frequently on the Epson, but the quality is certainly there. How particular you (or your customers) are is the main question!

My clients are always blown away at the quality of prints, but they are not my biggest critic. Prints have to get by me first before they are ever seen. I was printing with an epson 7800 prior, the prints from my 6400 are noticably better. Not really fair to compare since one uses 8 inks the other 12. I'm also now shooting with a D800 and my files have more detail. It is still, in my opinion, the final print is a product of the entire workflow.

Is there a noticeable difference between the 6300 and 6400 printers? Maybe that is why some answers say that Epson is better than the 6300 and others seem to indicate that the 6400 and Epson are very similar. Just trying to get at a more definitive answer...

I can't say if the 6400 produces a better quality or sharper print than the 6300. I know that when the 6400 came out I considered upgrading as I had done from the 6200 to the 6300, but something in the initial reviews gave me the impression that it wasn't worth it. I use the 6300 and the 7900 differently. I do many event posters, and then also restore old theatrical posters and photographs from huge TIFF files. The new posters I print out on the 6300 because it's reliable and it does a great job. Really, the quality is supurb. I load it with a roll of paper and away it goes to the end of the roll. The restorations and fine art (if you will) I print on the 7900 because (1) I want the very best results, (2) they are going to looked at closely for quality, (3) I am only doing one or two at a time (4) I am changing paper in the 7900 fequently (canvas to matt to metallic for example) and it's a snap as compared to my experience changing paper with the 6300.

Not in full agreement with that statement.I built my own custom profiles for the paper/printer.If the printer can't delivery the full digital content sent to it with custom profiles, then you've just wasted your time and money.